“Revolutionaries” in Kid Gloves

Published:Proletary, No. 5, June 26 (13), 1905.

      Published according to the text inProletary.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 8,

      pages526-530.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Isidor LaskerTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Friday,June 23 (10)

Thepress abroad has begun to comment on the audience granted to the Zemstvo
deputation by the tsar. As usual, the bourgeois press fawns, waxing sentimental
over the tsar’s amenability and the reasonableness of the Zemstvo
representatives, though certain doubts creep in as to the value of promises
given in so vague a form. The socialist papers bluntly and definitely declare
that the audience was a farce.

Theautocracy is playing for time and leading the liberal bourgeoisie by the
nose. On the one hand, dictatorial powers for Trepov; on the other, meaningless
and worthless promises to the liberals in order to cause further vacillation in
their all-too vacillating ranks. The tactics of the autocratic government are
not so stupid. The liberals are playing at loyalty, moderation, and modesty. Why
should not the government take advantage of their stupidity and cowardice?“A La guerre comme à la guerre.”There are no wars without
military stratagems. And when the “enemy” (the liberal bourgeoisie)
is something between a foe and a gullible friend, why not lead him by the nose?

M.Gaston Leroux, referred to in our leading article, reports the following
details concerning the audience, details which, though not very authentic, are
at any rate characteristic and significant. “Baron Fredericks, Minister
of the Court, told the delegates that, with the best of intentions, it was
difficult for him to obtain an imperial audience for Mr. Petrunkevich, who was
said to have revolutionary connections. It was pointed out to the Minister that
the Austrian Emperor had had among his Ministers M. Andrássy,who had at one time been sentenced. This argument removed the last difficulty
and the delegates ... were conducted to the Court.”

Theargument is a good one. The West-European bourgeoisie did fight in earnest
at first; at times it was even republican,its leaders were
“sentenced”—sentenced fortreason, i.e., not only for
revolutionary connections, but foractual revolutionary deeds.Then,
many years, sometimes decades, later these bourgeois accommodated themselves to
the most wretched of skimpy constitutions without a republic and without even
universal suffrage or real political freedom. The liberal bourgeois became fully
reconciled to “the Throne” and the police; they rose to power
themselves and brutally suppressed, as they do to this day, every aspiration of
the workers towards freedom and social reforms.

Russia’sliberal bourgeoisie wants to combine pleasure with profit.To be
regardedas a man with “revolutionary connections” is pleasant;
to be capable of occupying a ministerial seat under the Emperor Nicholas the
Bloody is profitable. The bourgeois liberals of Russia have no desire whatever to
risk “being sentenced” for treason. They preferthe direct
leapinto the stage in which ex-revolutionaries like Andrássy became
Ministers on the side of law and order. In 1848 Count Andrássy
had taken such an
energetic part in the revolutionary movement that, after the suppression of the
revolution, he was sentencedto death and hanged in effigy.He lived as
an émigré in France and in England, and he did not
return to Hungary until after
the amnesty of 1857. That is when his “ministerial” career
began. The Russian liberals do not want a revolution; they dread it; they want
to be accepted asex-revolutionariesstraight away, without ever
having been revolutionaries! They want to leap from 1847 into 1857 at a single
bound! They want to make a deal with the tsar straight away for a constitution
like those operating in Europe during the violent reaction which followed thedefeatof the Revolution of 1848.

Indeed,the example of Andrássy was an ideal choice. As the sun is reflected in
a tiny drop of water, so the parallel between the bourgeois democracy of
Europe, once revolutionary and republican, and the monarchist constitutionalist
(evenafter January 9, 1905) bourgeois “democracy” of Russia is reflected
      in the comparison between Andráissy and Petrunkevich. First the European
      bourgeois fought on the barricades for the republic, then they lived in
      exile, and they ended up by turning traitors to the cause of liberty,
      betraying the revolution, and taking service with the constitutional
      monarchs. The Russian bourgeois want to “learn from history”
      and “reduce the stages of development”: they want to betray
      the revolution straight away, to turn traitor to liberty straight away. In
      private conversation they repeat the words of Christ to Judas: “That
      thou doest, do quickly.”

“Theywere ushered into another hall, ... where the tsar was to receive
them,” continues M. Gaston Leroux, “when it was suddenly discovered that
the revolutionary Petrunkevich had no kid gloves. Colonel of the Life Guards
Putyatin instantly took off his own and hastily handed them to the
revolutionary.”

Theaudience began. Prince Trubetskoi delivered his speech. As reported by
M. Gaston Leroux, he began by stating how grateful they were to the tsar for
having “deigned to receive us, thereby proving your confidence in
us.... We are simply people of peace and order,” declared Prince Trubetskoi (on
behalf of the whole “Constitutional-Democratic”, orOsvobozhdeniye, Party), adding that “the tsar had been
deceived” by his councillors. The most “daring” passage in his
speech was the one in which he declared that an assembly of representatives
based on social-estates, as proposed by Bulygin, was“inadmissible”... why, you think? ...
because “You, Your Majesty, are not the Tsar of the nobles, of the
merchants and the peasants; you are the Tsar of All the Russias, and the
representation must be of the entire people without exception”. As to the
resolution of the Zemstvo Conference, which we publish in our leading

			       article,[1]of thatnot a whisper, as was only to be expected.

Mr.Fyodorov dealt in his speech with thefinancial sideof the “revolution in kid gloves”. The national budget would
increase after the war by an amount ranging from three hundred to four hundred
millions; “an enormous exertion for progress and civilisation” will
be necessary, and thisrequires the “independence of society” and the “call to life
of all men of talent among the people” (chosen under the control of
Trepov?).

Thetsar’s answer we know. “His speech over,” telegraphs
M. Gaston Leroux, “the tsar conversed amiably with each member of the
deputation. He went so far as to ask the famous revolutionary [Petrunkevich] if
he was a Marshal of the Nobility. The latter replying in the negative, the tsar
expressed the hope that the day would come when he would attain that rank and
passed on to another delegate. When he had taken leave of the company, the
delegates were ushered into a back room in the palace, where they were served a
lunch, which, they estimated, might cost 75 kopeks. In any case, the delegates
were pleased with the outcome. Elf not at once a ministerial portfolio, at least
the post of Marshal of the Nobility had been promised! Even Andráissy must have
started as a Marshal of the Nobility, or some thing of the sort! I They had
begun dispatching innumerable telegrams [to the effect that confidence between
the’ tsar and the “people” had now been restored? I ... when they
received the official text of the tsar’s reply. Great was their stupefaction
when they failed to find in it the only important sentence that seemed to
promise at least something. The words: ’Our imperial will to convene
representatives of the people is unshakable’ was changed to the simple
affirmation:
’Our imperial will is unshakable’. The delegates immediately returned this
official text as unacceptable. Today, not without impatience, they looked
forward to receiving a text that would contain the words they all had heard. One
of the deputies told me tonight [the telegram of M. Leroux is dated June 20 (7)]
with reference to this fantastic manipulation of sentences: This is no longer
an autocracy, it’s hocus-pocus."

Wellput, or well invented, if M. Leroux invented it all. There is hocus-pocus
in it even if the promise to convene the popular representatives had been
included in the official text of the speech. Kid gloves, and a flunkey’s at
that, are the true emblem of the political act performed by the Petrunkeviches
and the Rodichevs. They started with hocus-pocus themselves, not only by
accepting the terms of the audience, but by hiding their resolution in their
pockets, by concealingtheir real wishes, and by most improperly misrepresenting the tsar as a victim
      of deception, etc., etc. They have no right to complain now that their
      trickery was answered with trickery. For a general promise to convene
      representatives of the people means absolutely nothing and yields
      absolutely nothing while leaving a clear field for a Bulygin and
      Trepov. “constitution”, and ample opportunity for
      procrastination of every description. Everything remains as it
      was, except
      that the liberals, fooled like schoolboys, and disgraced by the promise
      of a Marshal’s rank, have done a service to the autocracy by dispatching
      telegrams hailing the return of “confidence” and making
      reports about the audience like Mr. Nikitin’s in the St. Petersburg
      municipal council.

Weshould not like to assume the role of Cassandra.[2]We should not
like to prophesy a ludicrous and ignoble end for the Russian revolution. But it
is our duty to tell the workers bluntly and openly, to tell the whole people
that things are heading that way. The Constitutional would-be Democratic Party
and all these gentlemen ofOsvobozhdeniyeare bringing matters to such
an end and to no other. Do not be deceived by the claptrap of theradical-Osvobozhdeniyespeeches and the Zemstvo resolutions. This is
the gaudily painted stage set for the “people”, while a brisk trade
is going on behind the scenes. The liberal bourgeoisie knows how to cast parts:
the radical spellbinders are sent to speechify at banquets and meetings, while
the hard-boiled businessmen are sent to “prepare the ground” among
the Court clique. And since the power remains perfectly intact and unlimited in
the hands of the autocracy, the inevitable result ofsucha course of
development will be a “constitution” a hundred times more like the
Bulygin scheme than that ofOsvobozhdeniye.

Thedestiny of the Russian revolution now rests with the proletariat. Only the
proletariat can put a stop to this haggling. Only the proletariat can, by a new
heroic effort, rouse the masses, split the wavering army, win over the
peasantry, and, arms in hand, gain freedom for the whole people by
ruthlessly
crushing the enemies of liberty and hurling aside its self-seeking and wavering
bourgeois bell-ringers.

[1]See pp. 520 -21 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Cassandra—daughter of Priam, legendary King of Troy. Cassandra,
according to ancient Greek legend, possessed the gift of prophecy and
prophesied the downfall of Troy.